سابقه‌ی حضور و ساعات کار

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that the annotations cannot: results are expressed in Tehran time and include daily hour totals. It still omits paging behavior, page-size limits, and what happens when the offset exceeds available records.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the resource name front-loaded, followed immediately by the returned content and time basis. The parenthetical Persian term earns its place as a query alias. Nothing is padded, though the sentence is dense enough that a second short clause on scope would still read cleanly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description compensates for the missing output schema by describing the return shape (sessions with start/end, daily hour totals) and the timezone. The remaining gap is that no return-shape detail is given for the manual branch, which differs structurally (paged clock-in/out records).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so days, kind, offset, and user_id are already documented at the field level, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the Tehran-time framing and the 'daily totals in hours' output note, which are not parameter-specific, so it does not meaningfully extend the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource ('Working-time history (حضور و غیاب)') and states what the output contains: sessions with start/end plus daily totals in hours. That is clearly more than a restatement of the title, but it never distinguishes this tool from neighboring history/dashboard tools such as mizito_get_history or mizito_dashboard, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over mizito_attendance / mizito_get_history, and no mention of prerequisites beyond what the schema already says about admin/monitoring access for user_id. The online-vs-manual distinction lives entirely in the schema's kind description, not in the tool description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.